1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to animal feeding and, more particularly, to an automatic device and method for identifying specific pets for the purposes of allowing or disallowing feedings, and maintaining animal-specific diets and feeding schedules.
2. Description of the Related Art
Some animals are restricted to certain diets for health reasons. However, it is often inconvenient based on the pet owner's schedule to accommodate the dietary needs of the animal. This is particularly true when the pet owner has more than one pet, each requiring different dietary needs. Also, animals can overheat if large amounts of food are simply made available and the animal tends to overeat.
It is desired to have a system that automatically replenishes an animal's food so that the animal can be repeatedly fed without the need for the pet owner being present.
It is also desired that the food be available to the animal only during its feeding time, to avoid other animals being interested in eating the food, and to prevent young children present in the household from playing with and/or eating the pet's food.
It is also desirable for the pet owner that the pet be able to determine its own feeding time by “requesting” access to the food, but said access is only given within a controlled schedule set by the pet owner.
It is further desired by pet owners with difficult working hours and/or with multiple pets to have a more convenient and reliable manner of controlling the feeding of the animal(s) with less personal intervention/responsibility.
Also, sometimes a pet owner has only one pet or otherwise cares for only one pet, and doesn't want its food accessed by other animals. For example, someone who cares for a barn cat may want to offer food thereto, but prevent birds, mice, etc., from having access to the food.
Further, any such pet feeding device must be convenient to use and healthy for the pet.
Various types of “automatic” animal feeding devices are known in the art. They generally rely upon timer mechanisms that are programmed to operate on a 24 hour timetable. When a predetermined elapsed time or specific “clock” time is met, the animal is simply allowed access to the food. Others do not rely on a timer, but allow a bulk storage device to automatically fill a completely exposed bowl by gravity feed or similar method.
Other systems are known wherein the availability of the food is dictated by the presence of the pet at the feeding device. More particularly, as described in Targa's U.S. Pat. No. 5,570,655 (Col 1, lines 28-52), the early work of Lee et al. (see U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,897,753 and 4,036,178) relates to a rather complex control system that generates an electric field around an open food receptacle. An animal wearing a special collar that is provided with a conductive portion to alter the electric field signals to the system that the proper animal is near, thereby disabling a shock or other signal generating device. In the converse situation, if an animal not wearing the special collar reaches over the lip of the receptacle, and makes contact with the metallic strip, it receives a shock, thereby frightening the animal away from the receptacle. Instead of the conductive collar, the device can rely on radio frequency (“RF”) technology. In an alternate embodiment, identifying the presence of a “tagged” animal can activate a hopper to fill a food receptacle.
While the Lee et al. system appears to have the ability to distinguish between those animals entitled to access and those who are not, the system is unreasonably complex. In addition, the fact that this system administers a shock to repel an animal may be deemed to be inhumane. Further, as the food is always exposed in the dish, this creates the risk that small children in the household will play with or eat the pet's food, as discussed by Lewis et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,349,671, Col. 10, lines 52-56.
Targa, supra, seeks to overcome the complexity of the Lee et al. devices by providing a dish that includes reed switches which cause an alarm to sound if a pet without a special collar seeks to feed from the dish. Again, the dish is always exposed, and the device has no ability to distinguish between pets as to the amount or time for feeding. Also, there is no way to automatically replenish food in the dish.
Lanfranchi, U.S. Pat. No. 5,669,328, provides a cone-shaped device which partially opens when a receiver in the device receives a signal from a collar on a pet. There is no ability to automatically refill the food bowl. Also, since only a small triangular opening is provided for feeding, it is possible that the animal will get its head stuck in the device, and the animal is unlikely to want to return to such a device, as suggested by Lewis et al., supra, (Col. 10, lines 37-45).
Lewis et al., on the other hand, provides at least one refrigerated dish of food accessible to an animal via a pair of movable doors, and relies on RF technology through a pet collar. Again, there is no way to automatically replenish the food in each dish, after the animal has eaten. Also, the system is rather complicated in having a plurality of solenoids, doors, cold plates, etc. Further, in order to feed a plurality of animals, a corresponding plurality of feeding devices appears required. Col. 6, lines 49-60 and Cols. 8 and 9.
Matsuura et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,044,795, shows an animal tag having a memory for pre-storing a history of the animal feeding times. The device samples the tag every 10 minutes or so and, if the animal is present, the food is dispensed to a separate dish. Again, the food is exposed once dispensed, so it is available for other animals or children to gain access thereto. This device also appears rather complicated, especially when it is considered that it can only feed one animal. Further, by requiring the tag to have a memory, the cost increases.
Thus, there remains a need for a simplified technique of controlling access by a plurality of animals to food, which is relatively cost-effective, can prevent overeating and is therefore more healthy, easy to use and clean, avoids shocks, is relatively less complex in regard to its use and operation, does not leave food exposed for other animals and possibly children to gain access, can regulate both the amount of food made available and the duration of time in which it is available, and which can automatically refill the food on a regular schedule, after each feeding.